TDR, the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, World Health Organization, 20 avenue Appia, 1211, Geneva 27, Switzerland.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Nov 29;16(1):116. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0391-0.
A review of research priorities completed by WHO technical units was undertaken. Results of the mapping were recorded in a database that was used to generate analysis and compare research priorities and the different methodological approaches used in their development.
A total of 116 documents were reviewed for this study. The documents were published between 2002 and 2017 by the technical programmes of WHO headquarters and deposited in the institutional repository, IRIS. Research priorities were extracted from documents into a standard template and mapped to a five-category research cycle type framework defined in the WHO Strategy on Research for Health covering research to describe the research problem, identifying the cause and risk factors, developing solutions and new interventions, understanding the barriers to implementation, and evaluation of the impact of response. Details of the research priority methods were recorded. A database with user interface was created using Microsoft Excel 2010.
A total of 2145 research priorities were extracted from the 116 documents meeting the inclusion criteria. The priorities specifically address 73 diseases/health topics. The document types were 26% Report, 22% WHO Guideline, 26% Research Prioritisation publication and 11% Meeting Notes. The most widely reported method used to identify priorities was expert consultation. Expert consultation was used to identify 86% of the priorities categorised here, with 26% (561) reporting it as the sole method; 52% (1111) explicitly listed a literature review as contributing to the identification of priorities. When the 2145 priorities were categorised across the research cycle framework, the largest portion (43%) addressed implementation challenges. The database is published here under an open access licence.
Comparing research priorities between diseases/health topics requires standardisation and the research cycle type framework is one approach that can be applied across all the health topics found in public health. There is great variation in the use of research priority-setting methodology at WHO Headquarters. Therefore, a standard reporting approach, linked to established good practice, should be an area for future development by the WHO Global Health R&D Observatory. The database reported here can also be used to quickly access and analyse the research priorities for a specific health topic or to compare across a range of health topics.
世卫组织技术部门对研究重点进行了审查。映射的结果记录在一个数据库中,该数据库用于生成分析并比较研究重点以及在制定研究重点时使用的不同方法。
本研究共审查了 116 份文件。这些文件是 2002 年至 2017 年在世卫组织总部各技术方案出版的,并存放在机构知识库 IRIS 中。研究重点从文件中提取到一个标准模板中,并映射到世卫组织卫生研究战略涵盖的五个类别研究周期类型框架,该框架涵盖了描述研究问题、确定原因和风险因素、开发解决方案和新干预措施、了解实施障碍以及评估应对影响的研究。记录了研究重点方法的详细信息。使用 Microsoft Excel 2010 创建了一个带有用户界面的数据库。
从符合纳入标准的 116 份文件中提取了 2145 项研究重点。这些重点专门针对 73 种疾病/健康问题。文件类型为 26%报告、22%世卫组织指南、26%研究重点出版物和 11%会议记录。报告识别重点最广泛使用的方法是专家咨询。专家咨询用于确定这里分类的 86%的重点,其中 26%(561 项)将其作为唯一方法报告;52%(1111 项)明确将文献综述列为确定重点的一个贡献因素。当将 2145 项重点按研究周期框架分类时,最大部分(43%)涉及实施挑战。该数据库根据开放获取许可证在此处发布。
比较不同疾病/健康问题之间的研究重点需要标准化,研究周期类型框架是一种可以应用于公共卫生中所有健康主题的方法。在世卫组织总部,研究重点制定方法的使用差异很大。因此,一个标准的报告方法,与既定的良好实践相关联,应该是世卫组织全球卫生研发观测站未来发展的一个领域。这里报告的数据库也可用于快速访问和分析特定健康主题的研究重点,或在一系列健康主题之间进行比较。